The attack against Iran wasn’t a direct response to an attack on us, as it was after 9-11, said J.T. Bandzuh, assistant professor of political science and geography.

Nor do a majority of Americans support what our government is doing now, as they did overwhelmingly then, he said.

Rather, only about 25% of people polled have expressed approval for the current war, which bodes ill for the effort, if it continues for a significant time, given that wartime support generally erodes, as casualties and expenses mount and “war fatigue” sets in, Bandzuh said.

The issues that Americans find troubling about what’s happening include the administration’s lack of prior consultation with Congress or explanation to the American people; shifting rationales for the attack; the seeming contrast between the weeks that American officials say the effort may take, compared to the quick resolution of the attack on Iran’s nuclear program last summer and the capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro in January; the new war being a joint venture with Israel; the memory of the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq in this century; Trump’s campaign assurances that he would be a president who stops wars rather than starts them; the chaos the attack has unleashed in the Mideast, with Iran attacking American allies; rising prices already at the gas pump; a feeling that the war may be a distraction from low polling numbers and the Epstein files; and suggestions by administration officials that “boots on the ground” may be necessary.

Haque

‘Complicated to rally around’

In democracies, it’s critical to have “some level of buy-in from Congress and the American people for sustained intervention,” Bandzuh said.

In this case, however, Congress was “left largely in the dark,” the professor said. “Early indications are that the American people will not support the effort,” he said.

Americans have “institutional memories” of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he said.

Those went on for many years in the aftermath of 9-11, with little progress and no ultimate success, he said.

An Iranian flag is placed among the ruins of a police station struck Monday during the U.S.–Israeli military campaign in Tehran, Iran, on Tuesday. The Associated Press

It’s likely that “a long-term commitment (in Iran) would be politically unpopular,” he said.

Moreover, if Americans need to spend more for gasoline and home heating oil, patience could “run thin,” he said.

The president saying that boots on the ground may be needed may be truthful, but hardly reassuring, he said.

The suspicion that the Israeli perspective provided a significant measure of the U.S. motivation for the attack “makes it more complicated for Americans to rally around, because it’s not just our agenda,” he said.

Israel actually may have more to gain than the U.S. from the intervention, due to its proximity to Iran and greater vulnerability to attack, according to Bandzuh.

During his campaign, Trump talked about America First and being a president for peace, but the prior strike in Iran, the Venezuela capture and now the new strikes in Iran — this time in tandem with Israel — have been contradictory to those campaign claims, Bandzuh said.

They’ve also left many of his MAGA supporters conflicted, he said.

The “boots on the ground” statements by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth may have been a feeler to see how the idea plays with the electorate, Bandzuh said.

If regime change turns out to be the ultimate goal of the war, it’s probably unrealistic to expect success based only on air strikes, the professor said.

In addition perhaps to boots on the ground, it may require the help of the Iranian people, he suggested.

But with thousands of Iranians killed in recent months for protesting, “it’s not a hospitable climate” for action by them against the regime, despite

Trump’s encouraging them to rise up, he said.

Questioning by media members about the rationale for the war has elicited a variety of responses, Bandzuh said.

The reasons have included the need to displace what is widely considered an abhorrent regime; the need to help the many Iranians who despise that regime to overthrow it; the need to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, despite Trump having said the bombing last summer had obliterated that nation’s nuclear program; the need to block the threat of Iran’s many missiles; the need to avenge U.S. casualties inflicted by the regime over the years and the damage and disruption the regime has caused in the Mideast overall; the need to counter an “imminent” threat to the U.S.; the need to join an already committed Israel in its attack on Iran to minimize the vulnerability of U.S. bases when Iran inevitably counterattacked; and the need to respond to Iran’s reported attempts to assassinate Trump, according to Bandzuh and other sources.

‘Objective is still to be determined’

“We hear a lot of different reasonings,” the professor said. “It’s a joint operation with another country to attack (a third) sovereign country with little or no notice, and the objective is still to be determined.”

Whether any part of the motivation for the attack was to distract from low polling numbers and the Epstein files, it has nevertheless certainly functioned as a diversion, the professor said.

The war has also created frustration and danger for U.S. allies in the Mideast, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which have been attacked by Iran, Bandzuh said.

Those nations are oil states that have diversified their economies and Westernized, using sports and high-end tourism with the development of luxury apartments and hotels and airports, even as they host U.S. military bases, the professor said.

But the war is threatening such efforts, because “nobody wants to travel to countries riddled” with violence, he said.

By closing the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, particularly oil and liquified natural gas tankers, Iran is also damaging those nations economically, while also causing gasoline prices to rise elsewhere, he said.

The Strait provides Iran with one of its few geopolitical chips, Bandzuh said.

The effect on the Gulf state allies of the U.S. is to “create doubt and instability for their partnership,” the professor said.

In at least one respect, the attack puts Democrats in the potentially awkward position of having nothing negative to say about the damage done to the Iranian regime, because of the contempt in which it is held.

“They can’t really speak up as being against (that) mission per se,” Bandzuh said.

The best “play” for Democrats is probably to object to the failure of the administration to provide notice to Congress and our allies, while waiting to see whether and how much damage the war inflicts on the administration and the Republicans, Bandzuh said.

One advantage for the Democrats is that if things turn sour, the administration can be the sole target of blame, he said.

‘It gets messy’

Any war is bad, said Zia Haque, director of the Baker Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies at Juniata College, in a conversation with the Mirror Tuesday.

There’s a growing tendency in recent years to solve problems through warfare, “but (that) just creates more problems,” Haque said.

He cited the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Better to engage in negotiations and diplomacy, Haque said.

“Sometimes (things) don’t go your way,” and progress can be slow, he said. “But it’s the most sustainable way to solve global problems.”

Given the dynamics and momentum of war, things tend to expand, evolve and spiral, he said.

Things have already started to spiral with the war in Iran, as it now involves several other countries, while Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has touched off inflation, he said.

“It gets messy,” he said. “It’s hard to control, once you hit the button to start.”

Asked what U.S. presidents he admires most for their approach to war and peace, he cited Jimmy Carter, although he said “all presidents have a good side.”

He especially liked the way Carter “engaged the world and the American people,” promoted democracy and mediated conflicts.

“Peace is the only route to solve problems,” Haque said. “Everybody can survive, everybody can thrive,” he said.

It’s important, he said, to “understand how to engage constructively instead of blowing things up.”

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 814-949-7038.